Earl Brunner on tue 19 mar 02
I guess if by quoting your own words back at you I'm getting personal then I might
be guilty. Perhaps I am not understanding them in the way that you intended.
Especially if what I wrote upsets you. Neither one of us is probably conveying
exactly to the other what we are really trying to say. That's one of the problems
with this form of communication, and this problem occurs all of the time on
Clayart. Freedom of ideas and freedom to express those ideas are valuable
commodities. Living where we can do both is great. I just exercised the freedom
to not listen to John Waters.
BTW If one is not offended by "dirty" words, it is more likely that they have heard
them too many times. Therefore they are no longer offended.
John Jensen wrote:
> Well, Earl, I am standing for something, and I do stand for a lot of things,
> for you to suggest otherwise is offensive and you should be ashamed of
> yourself for taking this conversation into the realm of personal attacks.
> You needn't take things to such extremes just to make your point. The fact
> is my mind is capable of processing thoughts and ideas in a way that my body
> is not capable of processing barium carbonate. I don't look upon words,
> thoughts and ideas as poison. Why was I proud? Because I looked around at
> a vast number of my fellow potters who were capable of listening to an
> artist talk about his live, his work and his ideas, without getting bogged
> down in childish obsession about "dirty words". Because if you are offended
> by "dirty words' it's more probably because you have a dirty mind.
>
> John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery, Annapolis
> mudbug@toad.net, www.Toadhouse.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
John Jensen on tue 19 mar 02
Well, Earl, I am standing for something, and I do stand for a lot of things,
for you to suggest otherwise is offensive and you should be ashamed of
yourself for taking this conversation into the realm of personal attacks.
You needn't take things to such extremes just to make your point. The fact
is my mind is capable of processing thoughts and ideas in a way that my body
is not capable of processing barium carbonate. I don't look upon words,
thoughts and ideas as poison. Why was I proud? Because I looked around at
a vast number of my fellow potters who were capable of listening to an
artist talk about his live, his work and his ideas, without getting bogged
down in childish obsession about "dirty words". Because if you are offended
by "dirty words' it's more probably because you have a dirty mind.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery, Annapolis
mudbug@toad.net, www.Toadhouse.com
vince pitelka on thu 21 mar 02
> Freedom of ideas and freedom to express those ideas are valuable
> commodities. Living where we can do both is great. I just exercised the
freedom to not listen to John Waters.
Yes, Earl, but that is not what you said - you essentially condemned Waters
and everyone who listened to him. Art is a reflection of the time and place
in which it is created, and in order to do its job, art must comment on all
aspects of society, including the seedy underbelly. That is part of what
Waters does in his films. By implying that Waters's presentation was
inappropriate, and that listening to him was inappropriate and could do
damage, you are engaging in censorship. Aren't you going off the deep end
here?
> BTW If one is not offended by "dirty" words, it is more likely that they
have heard them too many times. Therefore they are no longer offended.
Of course you know that the above is patently ridiculous. Those not
offended by "dirty" words in this context are those mature and sensitive
enough to listen to the deeper meaning. Dirty words are part of the
expression of our culture, and there is a reason why they exist. To refuse
to listen to them is to shut one's mind to the realities of our world.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Earl Brunner on fri 22 mar 02
vince pitelka wrote:
> > Freedom of ideas and freedom to express those ideas are valuable
> > commodities. Living where we can do both is great. I just exercised the
> freedom to not listen to John Waters.
>
> Yes, Earl, but that is not what you said - you essentially condemned Waters
> and everyone who listened to him. Art is a reflection of the time and place
> in which it is created, and in order to do its job, art must comment on all
> aspects of society, including the seedy underbelly. That is part of what
> Waters does in his films. By implying that Waters's presentation was
> inappropriate, and that listening to him was inappropriate and could do
> damage, you are engaging in censorship. Aren't you going off the deep end
> here?
>
World of difference between self-control and censorship. Somebody on this list
asked for opinions on the Randall session. I gave mine. Any condemnation,
perceived or otherwise is purely on the part of the reader. I based a decision of
mine on my opinion of whether I wanted to attend the Randall session on what was
written in the official NCECA program. I explained my reasons for not going. To
suggest that I am condemning others for attending is patently absurd. To do so
would mean that I would have to apply this logic to all other choices that I make.
I chose not to drink alcoholic beverages, therefore I condemn those that drink in
ay form, I choose not to eat at McDonald's therefore I condemn those that do.
>
> > BTW If one is not offended by "dirty" words, it is more likely that they
> have heard them too many times. Therefore they are no longer offended.
>
> Of course you know that the above is patently ridiculous. Those not
> offended by "dirty" words in this context are those mature and sensitive
> enough to listen to the deeper meaning. Dirty words are part of the
> expression of our culture, and there is a reason why they exist. To refuse
> to listen to them is to shut one's mind to the realities of our world.
You have got to be kidding, right?
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
| |
|
